Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 576 posts

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#221

Post by mtalantikite »

mancerayder wrote: post #84

High density is for young people. I've lived in ultra high density for decades and it's starting to really hurt. I sleep poorly due to noise (mostly from neighbors) and it's not fun to go for a walk anymore. I'm looking for a rural place to purchase a home because sorry, I just don't want to tolerate people's selfishness anymore. Density should come with more rules, both laws that are enforced as well as cultural rul…

Sounds like you should move to a rural place, and that's great! There's plenty of that in the US. And it sounds like you live in a place where biking on the sidewalk is legal, which I agree it shouldn't be (it's not here in NYC). But let's not throw away high density living because old people think the kids are making too much noise. As a New Yorker, I prefer the boisterousness of the city, because it sounds like joy to me. [1]

[1] reminds me of this recent article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/09/let-bro...

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#222

Post by ryukafalz »

sleepdreamy wrote: post #117
ryukafalz wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been tried several times in cities and by and large it seems to be profitable for the businesses.

Source? Just curious

I think I’ve seen this in a few places, there’s one source in particular I’m thinking of that I can’t seem to find but here are some:

The positive impact of car-free streets on businesses during COVID: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-11/the-busin...

Good overview about autoluw streets and the effects they have: https://youtu.be/GlXNVnftaNs

…though as the video states, autoluw doesn’t mean completely car-free. I tend to agree that it’s probably the best balance rather than eliminating all cars from the area.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#223

Post by scruple »

dont__panic wrote: post #202
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Town around 50000 is a good bet then. If you can work remotely, find a college town and live outside the center, about a mile. You can bike to anything, take the bus, or just walk. I did this. I have 100 restaurants, too many bars to count, music and theatre (three!) and festivals and arts within trivial distances. No car needed.

Even smaller towns are viable, too. My New England town has around 5,000 people in it. Aside from the early closing times for restaurants and breweries, (8 or 9!?!?!?!), I have access to exactly the same amenities I had in cities before. And lots more outdoor-oriented things as well. Plus... no traffic.

My wife and I are seriously considering our options in smaller towns in New England. Many of them predate the automobile and have the sorts of qualities that are being talked about in this thread.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#224

Post by atwood22 »

dont__panic wrote: post #196
atwood22 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are cars and phones giant these days? Is it because nobody wants smaller ones, or because perverse market incentives have distorted offerings in a chase for product growth? Do you have kids? If you did, you’d know that many people want bigger cars. I drive one of the smallest cars you can buy in the U.S. Now that I have a kid, I’m going to buy a big SUV. Kids require a lot of stuff. Taking them on public transp…

Those big cars are the kind of "perverse market incentive" I'm talking about. Why do you need a big car to transport your children? Because: - you can't walk anywhere useful with your kids (so you must get in a car) - public transportation is inconvenient or expensive - biking is dangerous - the big car makes you feel safer because all of the other cars are big Why are those things the way that they are? Because peop…

Sorry, you don't have kids so you just don't get it. I didn't get it either before I had a kid. All of the reasons you listed, bad public transport, dangerous biking, safety, etc. have nothing to do with why I want to buy an SUV. There are just so many items involved with raising a child. Yes, you might be able to take public transit so your kid can see the doctor, as long as you time it to be at an off-peak time, but there are so many other cases where you need a large car. A very basic example: You have a young child in NYC and you want to spend the weekend with your parents who live in Westchester. Without a kid, getting on Metro North with a small duffel bag of clothes would be trivial. With a kid, you need to bring a crib, toys, stroller, diapers, multiple changes of clothes, and maybe even a high table with you. Good luck getting all of that on the train, especially with a screaming kid!

The failure in your reasoning is that you see parents on the train, so you think that's their only mode of transportation. Yes, you can take the kid on the train for certain errands. Other times, however, having a car is 100x more convenient. And that is true everywhere.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#225

Post by falcolas »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #143
trombone5000 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less density doesn't imply less housing, especially when empty land is cheap, as it typically is in the USA. You just use more space. I hate cars, and I hate how expensive housing is, but as far as I can tell, housing is even more expensive in places (in the USA anyway) where cars are less necessary.

This is mostly due to supply and demand. Disregarding market forces, low density housing is some of the most expensive out there. This is due to higher per-unit construction, utility, transportation, and infrastructure costs. Unfortunately, low density construction is the default in the USA. High density housing gets bogged down in reviews and permitting, and medium density housing is effectively illegal in most citi…

The problem is that the supply/demand argument is that the demand largely isn't from people, it's from investment firms. And investment firms don't give two hoots about neighborhoods, density, cars, or anything other than the property's value appreciating over time (which it will, since we can't (without spending gobs of money) create more land).

Also, my personal opinion: I never want to live in a dense, or even semi-dense population center again. Living in a single family detached home with a small yard is fantastic. I can use speakers.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#226

Post by jandrewrogers »

kennend3 wrote: post #125
jandrewrogers wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30% is 100 million Americans. Also, a passport was not required to travel in North America (not sure if that is still the case). I traveled throughout Mexico and Canada before ever having a passport, for example.

I take it you have not travelled in some time? This hasn't been the case since "9/11" when the rules were changed. you need a passport to travel between USA/CA (not sure about Mexico but i would assume it needs a passport too?).

I routinely travel internationally. I simply wasn't conflating what I do at the border with a requirement. I regularly crossed the northern and southern border without a passport in the 1990s.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#227

Post by mjevans »

pkulak wrote: post #185
falcolas wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the hardest parts about buying a home, apart from all the stuff that isnt fun about buying a home, is finding somewhere that is walkable to... anything. That's because if you want an individual home, you're giving up the customer density required to make those amenities viable. In a world with the internet, at-home delivery, and yes, cars, it's simply not economically viable to create a grocery store that on…

OP said _home_, not single family house.

Not OP, but...

Apartments suck, a lot, in the US.

  * Noise; aren't built to sufficient privacy levels.
  * Smell; laundry, cooking, or whatever...
  * not designed to scrub, filter, and direct exhaust.
  * Patios == smoke or grill; even though those are banned by policy.
  * Somehow cost more than renting elsewhere
  * Rent seeking causes negative patterns
  * Car parking hell
As much as the anti-car crowd wants to be anti-car, they still exist, and many of us still have at least one per adult. Even if my job and day to day stuff fit in that city, family and friends currently don't: the car isn't going away.

Yes these problems also exist when you rent in single family home (intended, often not fulfilled) suburbia, but they're less due to the lower density.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#228

Post by dividefuel »

I certainly agree that the US planned too much around cars and not enough around walking/transit/cycling.

I am however often skeptical of the comparisons to university life. While walkability absolutely does help foster connection, I don't think you can attribute all of the differences just to that. There are other major differences between life in university and life outside that also make a big difference in fostering connection:

- Only 5,000-50,000 people in universities, compared to millions in cities. You're more likely to live near friends and more likely to run into them.

- The vast majority of people in university are in the same narrow age group

- Most people in university have more free time than those who work full time

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#229

Post by triceratops »

navbaker wrote: post #175
Invictus0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think that most Americans have not traveled enough to realize there is a better way. Only 30% of Americans even have a passport.

Do you realize how massively big the US is and how incredibly diverse of an experience you can have just traveling to the next state over? Having a passport/leaving the country isn't a requirement to see that there is a better or different way to live.

The US is incredibly big and diverse. The world is bigger and diverser.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#230

Post by frenchy »

TylerE wrote: post #145
scottLobster wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as a two car millennial American family that makes regular trips into our city center, we never use our cars going into the city. It's just stressful, streets are narrow, parking's expensive and car-jacking and vandalism are more likely. Just makes more sense to take the bus, cheaper too when you count the cost of parking. I also like having places to walk to from my house. That said, I like having my own house wi…

I’m having a hard time imagining traveling into a area where car-jacking is a credible threat - and yet feeling safe on public transit.

Not in the US, but I grew up in large city in a developing nation. Someone fooling with your car wasn't common, but it wouldn't be a huge surprise either. I regularly took public transit: it was cheap, plentiful, and well used. Obviously you wouldn't do anything silly like stuff a giant money-almost-falling-out wallet in your back pocket, but otherwise I felt perfectly safe.
Post reply on HN